When Theory Meets Practice: What Happens When Complementarians "Practice What They Preach"

Just this past week, I stopped by a local bookstore. I enjoy spending time “lusting” amongst the shelves, loaded with nothing but academically-delicious books (yes, I just made that phrase up!). While in there, I talked with a woman who is a higher-up in the bookstore, second in command only to another manager. She runs the day-to-day work in the bookstore, and everyone who works the cashiers and all take orders from her. Needless to say, she’s the “right-hand woman” around the place.

We talked some days ago about the manager, who is supposedly retiring sometime in the near future. In any case, the man who owns the place will need a new manager to run his store...and there she is, a qualified businessperson to run it, with about 15 years of experience in the store itself (the manager has worked the store for 25 years). Sadly enough, though, she probably will not be placed in charge of it because...you guessed it! She’s a woman!

Some of the owner’s friends played golf with him one day and expressed that their sons needed jobs. Since they and the bookstore owner are such good friends, they figured it wouldn’t hurt to ask the owner for jobs for their sons; and the owner found it no trouble at all to grant their sons the jobs. The owner told the friends, “They don’t even need to interview for the positions; just tell them to be in the bookstore Monday at 9am, and the jobs are theirs.”

Monday morning came, and the sons found themselves in the bookstore. Just as the sons were putting on their uniforms, the woman (the good friend I talked with) told them, “Now, after you get your uniforms on, I need you to start stacking the new books for the new semester courses on the shelves in the back room.” All through the day, the sons found it hard to work; they were little inspired, and everything seemed to come hard. All they wanted to do was see 5pm roll around so they could go home and relax after what they believed to be a “hard day.”

As 5pm rolled around, the sons were relieved to clock out. What they wanted to do, though, was have a little chat with the store owner. Evidently, something grieved them to the point where they needed to talk about it for some time.
As they were in the office talking with the store manager, the assistant came in and overheard the conversation. “I’m glad you wanted to give me a job,” one of the sons said. “But I didn’t know that I would have to work for a woman; I thought I was working directly for you. I thought I was taking orders from you.”

“What’s wrong with my assistant, Linda?” The manager said.
“Oh, nothing’s wrong with her.” At this point all the sons chimed in.

“We think that she’s great; she helped us find all the shelves, showed us around the store, helped us with price labeling and everything. She’s great.”

“Well, then, the problem is...” At this point, the manager began to turn serious.

“Well...she’s a woman,” one son reluctantly said.

“Well, of course, she is,” the manager exclaimed. “Don’t you think I see that?”

“Don’t you have a problem with that?” One of the sons asked.

“The Bible itself teaches from 1 Timothy 2 that the man is over the woman--- ‘Adam was formed first, then Eve.’ By right, one of us should have the assistant manager’s position, and she should be reporting to us.”

The manager responded with a firm but dedicated tone. “Linda will work here as the assistant manager; and if you gentlemen don’t like that, find somewhere else to work.” The manager walked out and closed the door behind him, leaving the sons to their shame. The next day, the sons took his advice, turned in their uniforms, and left the store.

In the account above, we can see that the sons had a problem with reporting to a female. In their minds, 1 Timothy 2 entitled them to rule over a woman. No woman, regardless of experience and qualifications, should be a leader in anything; rather, she should report to a man and have a man over her. And why? Because “that’s her place.”

Funny though, but isn’t that discrimination? And yet, when it comes to the church, suddenly, discrimination isn’t all that bad. When discrimination revolves around the church, isn’t it striking that it is so highly tolerated, taught, and promoted?

This, my friends, is the result of what happens when complementarians “practice what they preach.” And, in my opinion, I think we should see it more often---prayerfully, one day, complementarians will wake up and understand how biblically incorrect, theologically-damaging, and Lord-disdaining their theology of women really is...

A Chinese Lunch

Today I did lunch with a dear brother of mine. We had been trying to meet up together all semester, to take some time to discuss our favorite area of discussion--- THEOLOGY! So we finally met up and did a Chinese lunch today. Boy am I so glad to have brothers!!!

Our first topic of conversation involved evangelism and how to present the gospel to someone who does not believe in God and has no concern for learning about this God we believe in at all. But eventually, the conversation took a turn down a road that he and I both knew we would arrive at; and we ended up discussing two issues that seem to really flow together: the issue of Calvinism versus Arminianism (see my blog at CTS regarding the nature of this debate) and...an issue I love here very much: the issue of men and women in the church.

We began by discussing 1 Timothy 2, a passage that, as I’ve established, has been viewed by complementarians as a passage that “decisively” (their own words) kills the issue of whether or not women should lead in the church. I took my dear brother back to 1 Corinthians 11, another passage that talks about some form of creation order. There, I showed him that men and women are BOTH dependent “in the Lord.” The sphere of God’s house is the place where men and women are functionally equal, despite the woman’s functional submission to her husband in the home. Even the husband has no independence from the wife in the church (according to 1 Cor. 11:11-12)!

Then he asked me the question, “Does dependence nullify authority?” I told him that the husband has been given headship in the home, but God holds the headship of the church, and is free to do what He pleases in His House (Eph. 5:23). If Christ is the head of the church, and headship in the church belongs to Christ, then why does the Bride have to argue over which “bride” (member) of the Bride (Church) should lead?

Finally, my brother looked at me and said that he understands the differences between Calvinists (who are also complementarians) and Arminians (egalitarians): those who are Calvinists are more likely to be complementarians because they see that God chooses not only those who will be saved, but also chooses what gender (and as a result of gender, what gifts) a person will have. Arminians, on the other hand, who believe that everything is foreknown but not predetermined (chosen beforehand), see some indeterminate aspects to life itself, that everything is not picked out by God. In his mindset, Arminians, therefore, would choose to argue for women’s equal leadership opportunities in the church.

I think there is some truth to what he is saying regarding theology; however, I don’t think that a theological grid is the most important reason why the line divides along Calvinist (complementarian) and Arminian (egalitarian) lines. The most important factor that creates the divide is the biblical text. For me as both a Classical Arminian and a conservative egalitarian, I see the Bible itself as the dividing line. I cannot agree with complementarian argumentation because ultimately, they draw “inferences” to the biblical text without sufficient biblical proof. If God truly desired to tell women what they could not do in the church, why is it not as clear as the divine command for wives to submit to their husbands (Eph. 5:22; 1 Pet. 3:1; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5)?? It seems that the Holy Spirit, the Author of Holy Scripture, was not hesitant when He wanted to communicate to wives the need to submit to husbands. If complementarians are so right about women in leadership, why is the Spirit extremely silent on this issue? And why is it that the church has to “draw inferences” instead of drawing from Scripture? If “the simplest answer is often the best explanation,” then the answer to the question is “the Spirit does not make prohibition of woman leadership clear because He does not desire to prohibit women from leadership in the church."

In his chapter on “Human Nature” in the work “A Theology for the Church,” John Hammett writes regarding 1 Timothy 2:

“The passage begins with a call to let women learn, a somewhat revolutionary idea in some parts of the Mediterranean world of that time. But, Paul continues, women should not teach or exercise authority over a man. BUT HOW DOES THIS TEXT RELATE TO ROLES IN THE CHURCH? It seems clear from elsewhere in Scripture that THIS IS NOT A BLANKET PROHIBITION. For example, believers are commanded to teach and admonish one another (Col. 3:16), and Paul gives instructions concerning the praying and prophesying of women (1 Cor. 11:2-16). CONTEXT SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT THE TYPE OF TEACHING AND AUTHORITY PAUL HAS IN MIND IS THAT OF AN ELDER, for the qualifications for that office is the topic Paul turns to in 1 Timothy 3, and the duties of an elder include authoritative teaching and leading. Thus, 1 Timothy 2:11-15 prohibits women from serving in the role of elder or pastor” (John Hammett, “Human Nature,” from “A Theology for the Church” by Daniel L. Akin, editor. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2007, page 359).

But Hammett’s analysis here is rather subjective. Do we even read of women and elder in the same sentence in 1 Timothy 3? No. The issue of women teaching, then, is to first be investigated within the chapter of its location (which is chapter 2). Next, what about chapter 1? Hammett invests time on why women can’t teach according to chapter 3, but overlooks chapter 1 entirely. Hammett does not address the problems Paul does: (1) false teachers (1:3) and false doctrine (1:3), which consisted of “fables and endless genealogies” (1:4), as well as (2) students who desired to teach but were propagating false doctrine ignorantly (1:7). If these problems were to be incorporated into interpretation, then 1 Timothy 2 would be seen as Paul counteracting false teaching, not prohibiting women from serving in leadership roles. Hammett doesn’t address any of these mentionables of chapter 1. Why is this? It’s an interesting question indeed...

Last but not least, there is the question regarding women teaching: if women are ONLY prohibited from the office of elder and pastor (which seems to be Hammett’s conclusion), then are women prohibited from teaching men in a mixed Sunday school class? I find it fascinating that Hammett doesn’t argue against women teaching mixed Sunday school classes, and yet, so many churches prohibit women from so doing. Why is this? If scholars are not prohibiting women teaching, then why are so many churches prohibiting women from teaching? Although Hammett states that “this [1 Tim. 2] is not a blanket prohibition,” the churches sure seem convinced that it is...

Aside from Hammett’s interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, however, Hammett does make a good point about the weak argument from inference:

“Some complementarians think that the order established by God in marriage should also be an argument for a similar order within the church. Thus, just as women cannot be husbands or fathers in the family, so they cannot (or at least should not) be elders or pastors within the larger family, the church. While this view has a good deal of merit, WE ARE NOT LEFT TO SUCH AN INFERENTIAL ARGUMENT” (358).

Even Hammett admits that the above complementarian “consistency” is nothing more than an inference. And if the argument is just an inference, then we are left to Scripture to see what it tells us. And even the evidence against women as pastors (including Hammett’s analysis) is questionable.

Back to the Chinese lunch. At the end of the lunch time, I realized that my brother simply did not have a biblical text for his case. All he had was a collection of inferential arguments with no Scripture as justification. If Scripture provides no evidence against women, then the “traditional” view of complementarianism is nothing more than tradition; and if we believe the Bible to be the ultimate authority in every area of life, then we must either elevate tradition to Scripture or toss tradition out. And I know which one I choose...how about you?

The Rebel Bride: A Response to the Charge of Inconsistency

Some time ago, a friend of mine (who has been struggling with the issue of whether or not women should be elders and pastors in the modern-day church) told me that he doesn’t see evidence in the New Testament for women in pastoral leadership. His reason? According to him (and those who have instructed him), the creation order (which he believes 1 Timothy 2:12-15 teaches). My response to his statement was that if 1 Timothy 2 said what he believed it did, why is it that we read so much of wife submission (Eph. 5:22, Col. 3:18, 1 Pet. 3:1), but do not read of the submission of women to men in the church? The Scriptures, however, do command that the sheep of the flock submit to those who lead in the church (Heb. 13:17, 1 Thess. 5:12-13, 1 Tim. 5:17-18), but it never directly tells women to be submissive to the men of the church. Instead, what we find is that women, like men, prayed and prophesied publicly in the early church (1 Cor. 11:5), and women even served as apostles (Junia, Rom. 16:7). Women such as Phoebe were active as not only recognized workers of the church, but even as ambassadors or representatives to other churches (Rom. 16:1-2). Contrary to the belief of most complementarians, women even conducted churches in their homes (such as Nympha, Col. 4:15). Last but not least, women such as Euodia and Syntyche served side-by-side with Paul in preaching the gospel (Phil. 4:2-3). All this evidence cannot be a biblical “mistake.” No---it serves as an incredible witness to the role women played both in the church itself and outside of it. And all of this New Testament evidence doesn’t even mention the great prophetesses (such as Huldah) and judge (Deborah) of the Old Testament!!

In this post, I wanna tackle the issue of inconsistency. It has been said that conservative egalitarians are inconsistent when they advocate male headship in the home but teamwork leadership (both male and female) in the church. I was labeled “inconsistent” by my friend above, when I made this same statement to him.

But I would like to stop and pose this question to complementarians everywhere? How are conservative egalitarians inconsistent for their view? The Bible is what decides inconsistency, not my logic. If the Scriptures do not point out the error of egalitarianism, then its position is just as valid (if not more than) as complementarianism.

What do the Scriptures say? That’s the kind of question I like to hear...to answer this question, let’s look at the Bible.

As I mentioned above, the Bible confirms male headship in the home. A good example of this is Ephesians 5:22---

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, AS TO THE LORD.” (NKJV)

As this verse tells us, wives are to submit to their husbands as if they are submitting to the very Lord Himself. The husband has been given headship in the home. This is undisputed amongst complementarians and conservative egalitarians. I mention “conservative” egalitarians because there are liberal egalitarians (some are called “feminists”) who assert that male headship must be overthrown. While I sympathize with feminists and their mistreatment by male authorities, I cannot say that I agree with them. God has given the male headship in the home, whether you and I like it or not. If the Bible is the Word of God, then we must accept everything in it (whether or not it fits a preference of ours or not).

Having said that, though, the next question would be, “Does the Bible confirm male headship in the church?” the answer to this question would be a resounding no!! Let’s read further in the text of Ephesians 5:

“For the husband is THE HEAD OF THE WIFE, as also Christ is THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH; and He is the Savior of the body” (Eph. 5:23, NKJV).

Here we see that, while the husband is the head of the home, his headship stops there; Christ is the head of the church, and He will share His place with NOONE! So for complementarians hung up over male headship, check Ephesians 5:23. Nowhere does it affirm the male as the head of the church. So if the male is not the head of the church, then what is he in the church? Part of the bride. As Paul writes in Ephesians 5:29-30,

“For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, JUST AS THE LORD DOES THE CHURCH. FOR WE ARE MEMBERS OF HIS BODY, of His flesh and of His bones.”

No matter the gender, whether male or female, both genders comprise “the body of Christ.” Christ is the head, and we are the body. And the head is greater than the body, so Christ is Lord over and above all of us, whether male or female, whether Pastor, Elder, Deacon, choir member, nursery worker, etc.

Now that Ephesians 5 has cleared the air, one more question remains: Is the conservative egalitarian consistent in his/her view of male headship in the home and teamwork leadership in the church? Yes. The answer is found in the husband-wife analogy of both home and church relationships. Let’s revisit Ephesians 5:23 once more:

“For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church...”

Here we see the “husband-wife” analogy in both spheres. In the home, the male is the husband, and the female is the wife. In the church, Christ is the husband (the head), and the church is the wife, the Bride. We can see this in verse 25:

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church AND GAVE HIMSELF FOR HER” (Eph. 5:25).

The church, then, is the Bride of Christ (Christ being the husband). This is why the church in the Greek is an “ekklesia,” the “ia” ending serving as a “feminine” noun ending. Paul continues this analogy further in the same chapter:

“‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, but I speak CONCERNING CHRIST AND THE CHURCH” (Eph. 5:31-32).

So the verse Paul quotes from Genesis 2:24 he now tells us refers to Christ and the church. So the church is the Bride of Christ, and Christ is the Husband of the church.

Where then, is the inconsistency? We’ve seen that between male and female (and between Christ and church) that there is a husband and a wife established in both spheres. So, I ask complementarians, “What’s the problem?” Don’t worry: I think I know what it is...they continue to desire to replace women in the church because of a presupposition concerning 1 Timothy 2. But if Ephesians 5:23 tells us that Christ is the head of the church, and 1 Corinthians 12:13 tells us that the Spirit gives spiritual gifts “as He wills,” then how can complementarians continue to assert that 1 Tim. 2 refers to male leadership in the church? I think this is a fitting time for complementarians to step back and take a look at their scriptural interpretation. If you ask me, I think their interpretation of 1 Timothy 2 needs some serious reform...and the church needs to stop playing “rebel bride” and submit to her Husband (that is, Christ) by allowing Him to decide the giftedness of the church instead of the church herself.

Essence and Function, Part II-B: The Contingency of the Crucifixion

Following up my last post on “Essence and Function: Definition and Distinction,” I decided to create a second portion of Part II, where I would set up a simple argument for the temporary subordination of Christ. The temporary subordination of Christ can be proven by arguing that the coming of Christ to earth to die was not a necessary action, but a contingent one: that is, it was based upon the granting of free will to human beings and God’s foreknowledge of their later sin. I have set up a syllogism as a way to present a succinct argument.


Syllogism:

a. God freely decided to create the world.

b. God freely decided to grant human creation free will.

c. God freely knew that man, with his free will, would sin.

d. God freely knew man’s sin, and freely decided to come in the person of Christ to atone for man’s sin.

e. That which is freely done or that which is a free decision is not necessary.

f. Therefore, it was not necessary for God to create the world.

g. It was not necessary for God to grant free will to His human creation.

h. It was not necessary that man should sin.

i. It was not necessary that Christ come and atone for sin (if sin was not
necessary).

j. If none of God’s free decisions were necessary, then neither was His coming
to earth and crucifixion necessary. As a result, Christ’s subordination on earth was not necessary.

k. That which is necessary is eternal (as is God’s essence); that which is not necessary, then, cannot be eternal.

l. Christ’s subordination, then, was not necessary, and therefore, cannot be eternal. It can only be temporary.


In order to understand the above syllogism, one must know the terms involved. To begin with, let’s define the word “necessary”:

“Of an inevitable nature; inescapable.”

Christ’s essence, Godness (or divinity), was NECESSARY in order that Christ come to earth and atone for man’s sin. But what about his function? Let’s find the definition of the word “contingent”:

“Conditional; dependent; that may or may not occur” (from “The Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus,” Second Edition. New York: Berkeley Books, 2001).

If God had never created the world, then Jesus would never have had to come and die; how then, can His subordination have been “necessary” or “eternal”? those who argue this belief fail to consider the unorthodox theology behind such an argument.
I will refer to this twelve-point syllogism quite often as we continue to discuss the issue of essence and function. Stay tuned...

Essence and Function, Part II: Definition and Distinction

Happy New Year to everyone! I’m back, after a month away, to begin work at “Men and Women” for the year of 2010. It is such a blessing to be returning to the work I love once more!!

Since I was in the middle of a series on “Essence and Function,” I will pick up where I left off. This post will continue our series.

I told you in the last post that, as students of the Bible, all of us who name the name of Christ should be philosophers (which means, we should be “lovers of wisdom”). The Bible tells us the importance of godly wisdom and the benefits that godly wisdom provides for the believer.

Now, on to the task at hand: the definitions and distinctions of “essence” and “function.”

First, let’s define “essence”:

1. The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.

2. The most important ingredient; the crucial element.


3. The inherent, unchanging nature of a thing or class of things. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/essence)


Let’s notice some things about the above definitions of essence. First, we see that it is an “intrinsic” property that “identifies” something. It is important to see essence as an identifier because essence is the DEFINING MARK of an object or person. In addition, the essence of a thing is its “unchanging” nature. The essence stays the same. There is no change that occurs in the essence whatsoever. This is important because, if this is the case, then the essence must represent that which is “permanent” when compared with the function of something. The function, then, will be the opposite of essence; and if the essence is permanent, then the function must be temporary. It cannot be permanent because its duration (amount of time) must be distinguished from the essence (which is permanent). The opposite of “permanent” is “temporary.” Just keep these things in mind.

Next, let’s look at the definition of “function”:

1.the natural action or intended purpose of a person or thing in a specific role
2. a factor dependent upon another or other factors
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/function)

Function relates to “purpose” or “action” of a person. According to the second definition, the function is “dependent upon another or other factors.” This means that the function is a dependent variable. As I was always taught in mathematics, a “dependent” variable is that which needs something else in order to exist; an “independent” variable, on the other hand, is something that can stand on its own.

Take for example two factors, “time” and “height.” Time is an independent factor---in other words, time can stand on its own. However, height is a dependent factor, for I can only grow if time exists. If time does not exist, then I cannot grow. Another good example would be “seed growth of plant” and “weather.” The weather is the independent variable, because if the weather does not cooperate, then the seed will not grow. But even if the seed does not grow, the weather will still exist! This is why the weather is the independent variable: because it exists despite seed growth (or the lack thereof).

According to the definition of “function” given above, then, the function is a dependent variable, not able to exist without another factor. In this case, function would not exist without essence (think about it: if something does not exist, then it cannot function!). I think that it’s pretty easy to conceive of something that does not exist as having no function or purpose. After all, no one sits around and talks about imaginary objects as part of everyday life, do they?


Now, let’s talk more about Jesus and the Father. I have made the point here at the site that essence and function are opposites. If they are, and function is dependent upon essence (essence being permanent), then the function of something or someone must be temporary. If we use this in regards to Christ, He is ETERNALLY EQUAL in His essence, but TEMPORARILY SUBORDINATE in His function.

Why is Jesus’ function “temporarily subordinate”? Because it follows the meaning of function. Function is dependent upon the essence. If Jesus had not been God, He COULD NOT have been the Savior of the world (for the only one who could save mankind was God Himself). If one wants to debate about function, ask yourself this: “Could Jesus have been just a mere man AND the Savior of the world?” I think we all know the answer to that question (of course, it’s “NO WAY!”).

Now, to test this theory out of essence and function, let’s examine the view of the complementarians regarding Jesus:

ETERNALLY EQUAL in essence [but] ETERNALLY SUBORDINATE in function


Now, according to our definitions above, function must be dependent on essence. Function cannot be permanent if essence is, because function cannot exist without essence. Since this is the case, subordinate function cannot be “eternal.” Why? because “eternal subordination” implies that subordination is a permanent factor. In other words, complementarians, when they label subordination as “eternal,” imply that function can exist without essence (which it cannot!)...

We see this in everyday life. Take a student for instance: if that student were to lose his humanness, could he still be a student? No. Where have you ever seen a monkey go to class, sit, pay attention, answer questions, and take examinations, pass them, and function as a human being? I will boldly confess that I’ve never seen that sight before! And chances are, you haven’t either---which means that humanness is essential to the function of “being a student.” However, a human doesn’t have to function as a student---he could be a recording artist, for example, and still be human! “student function” is not necessary for a person to be human---“humanness” is!

I’ll give a real-life example of essence and function. In World War II, during the Holocaust, Hitler killed over 6 million Jews. I read Elie Wiesel’s “Night” and learned that Hitler killed all the Jews who seemed to be elderly and of old age. Wiesel writes in his book that he and others would run for some time before their doctor appointments, in order to show up “red” in the face and give the appearance that they were “young-blooded.” If they looked old and tired in any sense, the doctors would sentence them to the concentration camps, where they would die. Hitler reasoned that if a Jew could no longer function in hard labor, then that Jew was no longer human (and thus, no longer worthy of human life). Hitler advocated much of Darwinian biological evolution into his practices; and Darwin himself believed that man is just a machine: take away his function and he is no longer human. This explains eugenics and death in the cases of the paralyzed, comatose, and handicapped (whether mental or physical).

But this has also become the reasoning behind abortions. Have you ever wondered why abortions are so popular over the United States? Abortions have become the “new fad” of conception because they presuppose a Darwinian view: that man is just a machine, and without function, nothing at all. So if a fetus is present within a woman, but cannot function like a person, then the fetus is no person at all (just a bunch of biological raw material)---and can be “done away with.” And why? Because function, in the minds of humans, has become EQUAL to essence. I believe, however, that the fetus is still a human being (even if the fetus cannot “do” anything). And I believe the fetus remains human because essence is over function. Regardless of the human’s function, the human is still a human (even a fetus!).

I have one more thing to say about Jesus’ subordinate function, but I’ll save it until next time.

Essence and Function, Part One: The Importance of Philosophy

I’ve been thinking over the series on the Trinity that I’ve been doing here at the blog the last few days...and it has occurred to me through dialogue with others via e-mail that it is important to spend some time explaining the simple philosophy behind the Trinity and the men-women debate.

Now, some may say, “Well, this is a theological issue...let’s just stick to the Bible.” When I was younger, I believed the exact same thing----even until I was a seminary student, I believed the exact same thing. But my time at seminary (in addition to the countless pages of reading I’ve done) has convinced me, via historical theology, that debates in the church are not as much an issue of the Bible as they are of philosophy. In the debate on the Trinity, for instance, everyone will marshal their proof-texts to sway you to believe what they do; however, what happens when you arrive at an impasse? What happens when your opponent has just as many passages for his view as you do yours?

This is where philosophy comes in. During the Middle Ages, philosophy was labeled “the handmaiden of theology” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871268,00.html) and, although the two fields have had their share of fights, I still believe the statement to be true: philosophy is still the handmaiden of theology. Because Scripture speaks of God as a logical God, a God of order, a God who does that which is just and right, it makes sense to study philosophy. The word “philosophy” literally translated, comes from two Greek words, “philos” (lover) and “Sophia” (wisdom). Put together, the word “philosophy” refers to “a lover of wisdom.”

Scripture testifies that wisdom is a blessing:

“Happy is the man who finds WISDOM, and the man who gains understanding; for her proceeds are better than the profits of silver, and her gain than fine gold. She is more precious than rubies, and ALL THE THINGS YOU MAY DESIRE CANNOT COMPARE WITH HER. Length of days is in her right hand, in her left hand riches and honor. Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and ALL HER PATHS ARE PEACE. SHE IS A TREE OF LIFE to those who take hold of her, and happy are all who retain her” (Proverbs 3:13-18, NKJV).

Wisdom is more profitable than “silver,” “fine gold,” and “rubies.” Wisdom is worth more than “all the things” a person could ever desire. In other words, wisdom is the most valuable possession a person could ever own. Wisdom is even worth more than all my college and seminary training combined!

One of the most important things that Solomon wants us to see about wisdom is that “she is a tree of life to those who take hold of her...” Solomon labels wisdom as “a tree of life.”

Does the “tree of life” allusion here ring a bell? It should. This reference takes us back to Genesis, where Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden by eating fruit from “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.” Someone could say, “well, they aimed for knowledge...so, why was it a bad thing?” It was wrong because they were disobeying God! The very act of disobedience itself showed that humanity’s first parents did not have a “fear of the Lord,” which is central to wisdom: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding” (Prov. 9:10, NKJV). To first have wisdom, then, we must first have a reverential fear for the Lord. God must be first in our lives, and we must long to please him with all our heart, soul, and might (which involves the mind). Once He is Lord over our lives, then and only then can we seek to love Him with everything we are and everything we have. Wisdom, then, is not just a tree of knowledge, but a tree of understanding. And wisdom gives life, prolongs days (“length of years,” Prov. 3—see above).

It is at this point that you may ask me, “Well, I realize that wisdom is important, that it’s more valuable to me than anything I hold dear. How do I get this wisdom?” James, the brother of our Lord Jesus Christ, tell us:

“If any of you lacks wisdom, LET HIM ASK OF GOD, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him” (James 1:5).

I have taken some time here to show the importance of philosophy in the life of the believer. The Lord desires that we please Him with our minds; but in order to do that, we’ve got to become “lovers of wisdom.” The only way to do this is to know what wisdom is—and that starts with “the fear of the Lord.” Once a person has the Lord as the center of their entire existence, then he or she can begin to ask God for wisdom. God desires that we know Him in a most intimate way, so He will give us wisdom if we ask for it. Our desire to study philosophy should be founded upon our desire to please the Lord with our minds, our intellect that He so graciously bestowed upon humanity. Let the wicked and lazy servant be an example to us that, to throw away our minds is to disregard the goodness of our Lord...and thus, make ourselves enemies of His Grace.

I will continue with a discussion of wisdom and philosophy in future posts.

The Trinity: Good News For Women, Part I (Creative Absence)

“Stinson asked Allison to explain the discrepancy in the debate if both sides are claiming church history as their ally. Because the early church did not specifically discuss authority and submission in their teaching on the Trinity, Erickson takes this as the early church fathers not holding to authority and submission. Allison said that the church fathers saw authority and submission as SO NATURAL THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE TO MAKE IT EXPLICIT IN THEIR WRITINGS.” (https://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Trinity-Panel-Wrap-up-Part-1)

Our series on the Trinity will begin with a few articles regarding the intense debate amongst conservative evangelicals over the Trinity—and what this means for women in ministry.

Reading the quote above (from the article link above) made me laugh immensely. This
morning, I finished reading Millard Erickson’s chapter on “The Historical Considerations” from his book “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity? An Assessment of the Subordination Debate,” and the entire chapter revolved around tracing the church fathers who are claimed by both sides in the debate. Erickson wanted to show what the church fathers really said regarding the Trinity, and whether or not the fathers ever claimed that Jesus was subordinate to the Father.

I can tell you this: while Jesus was considered to be “eternally generated,” that is, “begotten of the Father from all eternity,” He was never unanimously labeled as “subordinate.” One church father, Hilary of Poitiers, comes out in his language and labels Jesus as “subordinate”; but none of the others do. Eternal generation does not imply eternal functional subordination. However, if Jesus is “eternally subordinate” in His function, then He is also “eternally subordinate” IN HIS ESSENCE—and this is the old ancient heresy of Arianism repackaged!

Gilbert Bilezikian, an egalitarian and equivalentist (believes in the equality of the Trinity persons), writes the following with regard to eternal functional subordination and eternal essence:

“a subordination that extends into eternity cannot remain only functional...it also becomes ipso facto an ONTOLOGICAL reality” (quoted by Millard Erickson, “The Equivalent-Authority View,” from “Who’s Tampering With the Trinity?” page 71).

If Jesus has existed from all eternity, and He has been “forced” to do what He’s told to do from all eternity, then He has been “ontologically subordinate” (inferior in Deity) from all eternity.

Here’s a simple way to approach this. Think about slavery times in this country. When it was reported that new land was available in America, European landowners and workers of all types decided to come to America. At first, there were those who couldn’t pay their way to America—they didn’t have enough for the fare. As a result, landowners began to help these everyday people make it to America. When the workers got to America, they placed themselves under the landowners with the title “indentured servants.” Such a title was meant to be “temporarily subordinate in function”: the only reason why the workers were servants to the landowners was to pay off their debt. In a few years, the indentured servants believed they would be free of their debt and would go their own way. As time passed, though, they began to understand that they wouldn’t be able to pay off their debt; as a result, not only would the indentured servant remain in service for his entire life, but GENERATIONS more of his kinsfolk would remain in slavery as well.

If we look at the subordinationist belief, they would say, “Well, Jesus IS God; He’s just SUBORDINATE in function.” They attempt to separate function from essence. But let’s get back to my slavery story above...

If the subordinationist belief is correct, then the slaves should have been considered the “equals” of the slaveowners, even though they were functionally subordinate, right? Isn’t this how it should have gone? yes. But the problem is, this is NOT how history unfolded; instead of the servants being considered the equals of their “functional superiors,” they began to be treated as “ontologically subordinate” to their superiors. Once blacks were enslaved in what seemed to be an unceasing spiral, no longer did the surrounding society deem them as “equals.” Instead, what we find in reading history is that society began to argue the INEQUALITY of persons. Blacks now were deemed BIOLOGICALLY INFERIOR, labeled as the “chattel” or property of their slaveowners, and deprived of rights in this country like voting, citizenship, etc.

But wait a minute! Blacks were equal, right? Yeah, in theory...but the fact that society enslaved them and THEN found “genetic” arguments to “prove” the reasons for enslavement and inequality shows that even a society can’t maintain an “equal, but subordinate stance.”

The truth is, subordinationists cannot maintain “equal, yet subordinate” and hold them both in balance. If an “equal essence” exists, then it is “essence” we must emphasize. If we don’t, then even “blacks” in my story above become nothing more than “animals.” To stress the differences of human beings at the expense of the human quality creates a whole new category of “species” for the “black” person.

And it is no different with the Trinity. To stress the subordination of Jesus at the expense of His equality as Deity is to make Him less than God.

In the world of philosophy, Bilezikian (whom I just quoted above) uses what is called “The Law of Non-Contradiction,” which states that two OPPOSING ideas cannot be the same in all respects AT THE SAME TIME. Let’s take for example, the words “tall” and “short.” Now we all know that these two adjectives are in direct contradiction to each other. To reconcile them, we must “qualify” the adjectives themselves—in other words, specify TO WHAT EXTENT these two adjectives can peacefully co-exist. So, if Sue is “both tall and short,” we must explain HOW this can be. Sue cannot be “EQUALLY TALL AND EQUALLY SHORT” at the same time. However, Sue can be “tall” and be “shorter than her grandmother” at the same time. The second phrase, “shorter than her grandmother,” tells us the extent to which Sue is “short.” With the qualifying statement, though, we see that Sue’s “shortness” is relative. It doesn’t change the fact that when we see her walking in the mall, because she is six feet tall, she will be labeled “tall.”

But, can Sue be “taller than her grandmother” and “shorter than her grandmother” at the same time? Of course not! When a person is using a qualifying statement, if one quality is absolute (unqualified), the other must be qualified. Now, both statements can be qualified (for instance, “taller than her aunt, shorter than her grandmother”); but both CANNOT be unqualified (tall and short).

And this is where the subordinationists fall into a trap.

Essence is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

1 a : the permanent as contrasted with the accidental element of being.

What is “function”?

Merriam-Webster defines “function” as that which “implies a definite end or purpose that the one in question serves or a particular kind of work it is intended to perform.”

If essence, then, is “permanent,” then function must be “temporary,” for it “implies a definite END,” in and of itself. Seeing this, then, “essence” and “function” are opposites.

Because they are opposites, they cannot co-exist (like tall and short) without some sort of qualifier. If a person cannot be “equally tall and equally short,” then neither can they be “the same in essence and the same in function.”

There are, then, three choices:
(1) Qualify the essence
(2) Qualify the function
(3) Qualify both essence and function

First, let’s qualify the essence. Since this is important to Jesus as Deity, we will say that He is “equal in essence” to the Father.

Next, let’s qualify the function. Since this is where Jesus differs from the Father, we will say that He is “different” in function. We’ll come back to this in a moment.

Last, we are left to qualify both essence and function.

Now, look at what we have. Jesus is equal in essence, but unequal (different) in function. Have we solved the problem here? No, absolutely not! By saying that Jesus is “equal in essence, unequal in function,” all we’ve done is pile MORE OPPOSITES on top of the OPPOSITES! Look at it:

EQUAL in ESSENCE

UNEQUAL in FUNCTION

All we’ve done is piled two more opposites (equal and unequal) on top of two previous opposites (essence and function). We’ve still got two absolute statements without qualifiers. So now, we’ve got to find two more adjectives to qualify the two statements above. The end result of these two must be in such a state where one is permanent (absolute) and the other is temporary (qualified).

What do the subordinationists do? They present to us the following:

ETERNALLY EQUAL in ESSENCE

ETERNALLY UNEQUAL in FUNCTION

But this only compounds the problem we had above! We notice that they’ve added another qualifier, but it’s the SAME. They have failed to add two qualifiers that will distinguish the two statements.

By using the word “eternally,” all they’ve given us are “equally opposing statements”! We are no better off than where we started. Sue is still “always tall” and “always short” (if we use the same qualifier, “always”).

Therefore, if Jesus is “eternally equal in essence,” He cannot be “eternally unequal (or subordinate) in function.” There must be a qualifier to the equality and a qualifier to the subordination (for both essence and function are opposites).

If we qualify Jesus’ essence, what shall we do? Well, if we say that He is “temporarily” equal in essence, then we have committed the old ancient heresy of Arianism (where Arius believed that Jesus had a “point of beginning” and was “created”). However, we would then be forced to keep the other opposing phrase, “eternally unequal in function”; this would then mean that Jesus is “less God” than the Father (because He would only share Deity for a time—“temporarily equal”). We end up with this:

TEMPORARILY EQUAL in ESSENCE
ETERNALLY UNEQUAL in FUNCTION
If, then, we decide to say that Jesus is “temporarily unequal in function,” then we end up with this scheme:

ETERNALLY EQUAL in ESSENCE
TEMPORARILY UNEQUAL in FUNCTION

This fits what we know about Jesus and His existence. In the case of Jesus, we see that one exists for a shorter duration than the other, that being Jesus’ subordinate function is “temporary,” as compared to His “essence,” which is “eternal.”

Even if we had not used “essence” and “function,” we can still see the problem with the subordinationist view:
“eternally equal”
“eternally unequal”

In this case, we still have TWO EQUALLY OPPOSING PHRASES that would still need a qualifier to distinguish them. Jesus would then have had to be either
TEMPORARILY equal
ETERNALLY unequal

OR

ETERNALLY equal
TEMPORARILY uneqal

Bilezikian makes the argument that “eternal” subordination becomes part of the “eternal” essence. Here, however, I’ve shown you that, according to the rules of philosophy and logic, the subordinationist view doesn’t hold up.

About the Allison quote? I'll tackle it in my next post...

Men, Women, and Dominion

“A biblical understanding of human equality should begin with Genesis 1:26-28, where women and men together without distinction are declared to be created in God’s image and are given authority over all creation. In both their being (the divine image) and their calling (authority and dominion) men and women are CREATIONALLY EQUAL” (“Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy,” by Ronald Pierce and Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, pages 305-306).

Rebecca Merrill Groothuis believes that Genesis 1:26-28 serves as the foundation for a discussion on men and women in the church; and I think so as well. I mean, the only way to know what Christ desires of His church is to know what He desired of men and women in the beginning. This way, men and women would be living out the primary reason for which they were created.

Let’s reprint the text of Genesis 1 so that everyone can read the above-mentioned
verses:

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness. They will
rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures that crawl on the earth.’ So God created man in His own image; He created him in the image of God; He created them MALE and FEMALE. God blessed them, and said to them, ‘Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and SUBDUE it. RULE the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth’” (Gen. 1:26-28, Holman Christian Standard Bible).

When God decided to create man, He said, “THEY [referring to male and female, both genders] will RULE the fish of the sea…” The Greek word for “they will rule” in the Septuagint (LXX) is “arxetosan.” This word is not a future verb, but instead, a subjunctive verb—which means that the action is voluntary on the part of God. A more accurate translation would be, “LET THEM rule…” Translating it this way shows that God WILLED man to have dominion; He wasn’t forced to give dominion to mankind. God gave it to both man and woman, though, because it SEEMED GOOD TO HIM to do so.
Look at verse 27. God made both male and female and gave them His image. Woman is equal to man solely on the basis that she was CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, just as much as the man was!!

In verse 28, God tells man to “subdue” the earth. The Greek word for “subdue” in the Septuagint is “katakurieusate,” which is an imperative meaning, “BE LORD OVER.” So God blessed the man AND the woman, and then told them both to be lord over the earth. The most fascinating thing about these instructions from God is that, by so doing, by telling Adam and Eve to “be lord over” the earth, He was telling them to act upon their SIMILARLITY to Himself!! God is the LORD of everything, whether in heaven, on earth, or beneath the earth; and yet, man was made “lord” over the earth. Man was given a benefit, a privilege, BY VIRTUE OF being made in God’s image.

And it is here that I have to talk about God’s actions: when He makes man and decides to give him rule over the earth, He doesn’t just affirm their likeness to Himself IN THEORY—He actually gives them something to do or act upon because they bear the image of the Divine.

Complementarians, then, are outside the line of orthodoxy when they spend all their time on the biological differences of men and women.

Tell me, what would have happen to us if God considered our “likeness” to Him to be something in which we did NOTHING like Him (which includes ruling over and watching over the earth)? As I mentioned above, God WILLED man to have rule over the earth (He wasn’t forced to let man rule). However, He did it because He wanted to, but He could have done it differently because He was GOD—and man, although LIKE HIM in many ways, would never BE HIM COMPLETELY!! So the first chapter of Genesis, in stark contrast to the argument of the complementarian, affirms not only man and woman as being equally made in the image of God (and hence, their equality), but also the SIMILARLITY of mankind to his (and her) Creator! Not even God emphasizes mankind’s DIFFERENCES from Him; no—He focuses on the SIMILARITIES that man would have to Himself. It is in the spirit of similarities that the Lord allows mankind to “rule” the earth.

I think Genesis 1:26-28, however, shows us something more. Not only are we LIKE God, but we receive blessings FROM God (dominion over the earth) because we are like Him. Our being LIKE Him, yet DIFFERENT FROM Him, are not used to restrict man’s ability, or mistreat him, or to throw God’s weight around. And by virtue of being humans, “Christ-bearers” (bearers of the imago Dei), we are given power and authority and a “kingdom” in which to rule. This doesn’t match the complementarian view, which STRESSES the DIFFERENCES and DIMINISHES the SIMILARITIES!

Complementarians have a problem when they assert that a woman’s biological differences make her LESS than the man—not even God made that pronouncement in the Garden…

I’ll discuss more of the implications of Groothuis’s quote above in my next post.

Schreiner's Biological Argument Overturned

Recently I wrote a post on I. Howard Marshall’s chapter in “Theological Interpretation of the New Testament” (edited by Vanhoozer, Treier, and N.T. Wright), where I showed Marshall’s study of 1 Timothy 2 revealed that the traditional argument doesn’t make sense and can’t be proven. After writing that post, I mulled the statements from Thomas Schreiner and Wayne Grudem over and over in my head. I’ve been studying this subject for the last two years (intensely), and the last three years at large; but I think that the ridiculous statements from the complementarian camp still seem to shock me. After all this time, I can still feel “the woman” rising in me when someone repeats the biological argument against women and their ministries.

Reading Schreiner and Grudem’s quotes from Grudem’s book “Evangelical Feminism,” I began to remember that Sarah Sumner wrote something in her book called “Men and Women in the Church” that seemed to tackle the biological argument—her chapter called “What’s a ‘Weaker Vessel’?” (chapter 11).

Just to get a feel for what I’m discussing, let’s place Schreiner’s and Grudem’s quotes up once more for all to see:

““God’s order of creation is mirrored in the nature of men and women. Satan approached the woman first not only because of the order of creation but also because of the different inclinations present in Adam and Eve. Generally speaking, women are more relational and nurturing and men are more given to rational analysis and objectivity…appointing women to the teaching office is prohibited because they are LESS LIKELY to draw a line on doctrinal non-negotiables, and thus DECEPTION AND FALSE TEACHING WILL MORE EASILY ENTER THE CHURCH…” (pg. 71; quote itself taken from Thomas Schreiner’s “Interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, pp. 145-146).

Grudem, after quoting Thomas Schreiner, takes up this line of thought himself in “Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth”:

“God gave men, IN GENERAL, a disposition that is BETTER SUITED TO TEACHING AND GOVERNING in the church, a disposition that inclines more to rational, logical analysis of doctrine and a desire to protect the doctrinal purity of the church, and God gave women, IN GENERAL, a disposition that INCLINES MORE TOWARD A RELATIONAL, NURTURING EMPHASIS THAT PLACES A HIGHER VALUE ON UNITY AND COMMUNITY IN THE CHURCH (v.14)” (pg. 72).

If one reads Schreiner’s explanations of the biological differences between men and women, one is easily led to believe that a woman’s “relational and nurturing nature” make her “less likely to combat error in the church,” which means that she is a weakling. On the other hand, men are supposed to “protect” the doctrine of the church and maintain her purity (once again, the male is to “protect” the feminine, which is the church).

Without saying it, Schreiner states that men are stronger “in mind,” while women are stronger “in heart”—the heart being the seat of emotions.

But the question is, is this what Scripture affirms? The answer is a firm “No.” Jesus came on earth and took on human flesh—yet He wept over Lazarus (John 11:35) and was grieved for the masses who had no shepherd to guide them (Matthew 9:36). Jesus even sweated “like drops of blood” as He prayed for the Father to remove the task before Him (Luke 22:44). Jesus possessed emotion and showed it while one earth. Men should have a problem with Schreiner’s and Grudem’s views of men as just being “of the mind”—basically, without saying it, these two men are labeling the male gender as “heartless.” And what about the women? Well, according to their ideas about biological constitution, women let their emotions rule them. This is absolutely ridiculous when you look at the number of great women that study in universities and academic institutions in this country, and go on to make lasting changes on our society. If emotions ruled them, the intellect would take a back seat—and yet, it doesn’t. Doesn’t that tell us something about the way these men think that should disturb us?

Does Scripture affirm Schreiner’s and Grudem’s view of men and women? Absolutely not!

Let’s take a look at 1 Peter 3:7—

“7Likewise,(I) husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker(J) vessel, since they are heirs with you[a] of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”

Notice that Peter calls the woman “the weaker vessel.” Now I thought at first glance—as well as most—that when Peter calls women “the weaker vessel,” that he was affirming Schreiner and Grudem; but Sarah Sumner hit at something that I had never thought about before:

“The word is a comparative—weakER. The implication is that husbands are WEAK and wives are WEAKER. BOTH ARE VULNERABLE. To be more precise, the Greek word ‘asthenes’ literally means ‘STRENGTHLESS’. The implication, then, is that MEN ARE STRENGTHLESS AND WOMEN ARE YET MORE STRENGTHLESS. The DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WOMEN AND MEN LIES IN THE DEGREE OF THEIR STRENGTHLESSNESS, or as we said before, their VULNERABILITY” (Sumner, “Men and Women in the Church,” pg. 135).

When Peter calls women “weaker,” he must be calling them “weaker” in relation to something. For instance, if I like eating at Applebee’s, I might say that the food was “good.” But what about if I am asked about Applebee’s food VERSUS FOOD SOMEWHERE ELSE, like Chili’s? I might say, “I like Applebee’s, but I like Chili’s BETTER.” Why do I use the word “better”? Because I am comparing one restaurant’s food to another’s. Only with a comparison is the word “better” used; and it is the same with “weaker.” If women are the “weaker,” then they have to be weak IN RELATION TO SOMETHING! In relation to what? In relation to men.

But what does this comparison do for us? It shows us that women are not the ONLY WEAK ONES—MEN ARE WEAK TOO, but women are MORE WEAK than men!

But where does this weakness lie? Sumner discusses the use of the word “vessel” (skeuos) in 1 Peter 3:7 to reveal the source of weakness:

“The Greek word for ‘vessel’ (skeuos) specifies PHYSICALITY. The same word occurs in 1 Thessalonians 4:3-4, ‘For this is the will of God…that each of you know how to possess his own ‘vessel’ in sanctification and honor.’ The point is for every individual Christian to be responsible to stay sexually pure. To possess your own ‘vessel’ means to control your own body. Thus women, as weaker vessels, are PHYSICALLY MORE VULNERABLE THAN MEN” (Sumner, 135).

So men are WEAK in body, contrary to what society tells them—and women are WEAKER in body than men are. Men are physically stronger than women are, but the physicality is where it stops—NOTHING in Scripture indicates that men are stronger MENTALLY or EMOTIONALLY, or any of the rest of it. Neither does Scripture indicate women are stronger in their emotions or mentality, etc. Men are, however, physically stronger.
Now, back to Schreiner’s statement: Scripture has nothing to say along the lines of Schreiner. There is no biological argument that makes men more fit to lead in the church than women. There is only a Scriptural argument regarding the physical strength of men and women. But, fascinatingly enough, God doesn’t pick leaders according to their strength…

Encountering Church Tradition

Sometime ago, I wrote about the philosophical differences in the debate on women in ministry between the Thomists and the Scotists. While the Thomist believes that God's will is revealed in God's design, Scotists do not-- they believe that, despite God's will, design will not reveal it. By advocating such a theory, they do a major disgrace to God's glory-- for, according to Romans 1, God's glory has been revealed in the things that have been made.

The example Sarah Sumner used regarding a Scotist was the elder who said that his wife would make a better elder in ministry than he was. But Sumner uses this example to go into the bigger issue: while there is a philosophical issue at stake, the issue of women in ministry is deeply rooted in church tradition. Sumner notes church tradition and the clashing response of the elder:

"Church tradition says that she is not to be treated on a par with the men because she, being a woman, stands below. According to tradition, it makes sense for the status of the person to align with the status of the role. Therefore traditionally it has been thought that a woman ought to be assigned a subordinate role since she is an inferior being. This was the rule because this was the logic of tradition.

Counter to tradition, this elder says his wife is not inferior. Her essence, according to him, is EQUAL to his own. Thus there is no correlation in his complementarian logic between his wife's EQUAL essence and her subordinate role. Her equality as a person has no bearing whatsoever on her function. Consider the comparison:
Tradition: women as INFERIORS should always assume SUBORDINATE roles.
Complementarianism: women as EQUALS should always assume SUBORDINATE roles.

Do you see what has happened? Complementarians, in their benevolent intention to be BIBLICAL and LOVING, dumped the traditional premise that women are inferior to men. Unwittingly, however, they continue to maintain the logical conclusion of that premise. It makes good sense to say inferior beings ought to assume subordinate roles; that's why the church fathers said it. But it doesn't make sense to say EQUAL beings should always be SUBORDINATE too. It's more logical to say that equal beings share in equal status"(Sumner, "Men and Women in the Church," pp. 285-86).

I looked up the word "equal" in Webster's dictionary () and I was given one important definition (among others):
(1) Like in quality, nature, or status.
(2) like for each member of a group, class, or society.

Looking at definition number one, we can understand that men and women are made with a unique quality and nature-- for they are both made in the image of God. Remember God's words in Genesis 1:26-27?

26Then God said,(O) "Let us make man[h] in our image,(P) after our likeness. And(Q) let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; (R) male and female he created them.

Both man and woman were made EQUALLY in the image of God, women no less than men (women were considered to be LESS made in the image of God than men in church tradition as well-- read Sumner's chapter on "Is It Better to Be a Man than a Woman?").
Notice however with the first definition, that equality is not just in nature and quality, but also "status."

Merriam-Webster's dictionary also accords us a definition of "status":
(1) position or rank in relation to others.
(2) the condition of a person or thing in the eyes of the law

So, equality does not just involve quality and nature, but also "status"-- which means that no one gender is able to achieve a place of prominence over the other, because both are given the opportunity to achieve and advance.

To some this may seem like just a political definition. But this position is also accorded in Scripture in Galatians 3:

25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus(AV) you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as(AW) were baptized(AX) into Christ have(AY) put on Christ. 28(AZ) There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave[g] nor free,(BA) there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And(BB) if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring,(BC) heirs according to promise" (Galatians 3:25-28, ESV).

The context of Galatians 3 concerns being "in Christ," or being in the family of Christ. Everyone that professes Jesus as Lord is as EQUALLY a part of the Body of Christ as anyone else, and everyone is EQUAL before the Lord. Everyone is entitled to the spiritual blessings of Christ (Ephesians 1:3-4), as well as the fellowship that believers have together in Christ. No one is to be left out on the basis of whether they are Jew, Gentile, slave, free man, male, or female.

I wanna stop here and involve a counter to church tradition: Complementarians often attack egalitarians because they use Galatians 3:28 so much as basis for why women should be on equal par with men in the church; however, complementarians, as Sumner shows us, have failed to think through their logical system: if God has a will, and He reveals Himself, why wouldn't mankind "see" God's will in creation?
But I wanna take this a step further. Complementarians also fail in their logic with regards to Galatians 3:28. This verse states that someone's ethnic, economic, or gender status is not what "merits" one into the family of Christ-- what brings someone into the family of Christ is because of what Christ did on the cross (Christ's birth, death, and crucifixion being in the will of the Father). If social status of any kind cannot warrant a person into the family of God, what makes the complementarian believe that now, one's social status (whether male or female, for instance), can warrant a person's giftedness in the body of Christ?

How can complementarians espouse a Gospel of Grace, but yet, advocate a Gospel of favoritism with regard to the gifts-- that God gifts only men for certain gifts? The logic doesn't make any sense.

That's the gist of Sumner's argument. Look back at the quotes from the traditional and complementarian views. The traditional view of women as "inferior" has changed to "equal"; but women, no matter how the initial portion of the premise has changed, are still to assume subordinate roles!

It's time for complementarians (such as the elder in Sumner's example) to admit to themselves and the rest of evangelical Christendom that they have a presuppositional gender bias that won't allow them to give women a warm reception into ministry. As I've always heard it said, "the first step to tackling a problem is to ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE ONE...

Word and Etymology-- An Ancient Landmark

14(L) "You shall not move your neighbor’s landmark, which the men of old have set, in the inheritance that you will hold in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess.” (Deuteronomy 19:14, ESV)

I picked up a new book to read recently called “Exegetical Fallacies” (Second Edition) by D.A. Carson. Carson calls this book “an amateur’s collection of exegetical fallacies” (pg.26), and he isn’t joking—at the outset, that is what this book seems to be. I’ve only ready about 30 pages (maybe a little more) and I’m about ready to call this book a “laugher.” He starts his book out with word-study fallacies. The first fallacy Carson addresses is “the root fallacy”:

“One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually HAS A MEANING BOUND UP WITH ITS SHAPE OR COMPONENTS. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word. How many times have we been told that because the verbal cognate of ‘apostolos’ (Greek for ‘apostle’) is ‘apostello’ (I send), the root meaning of ‘apostle’ is ‘one who is sent’?...how often do preachers refer to the verb ‘agapao’ (to love), contrast it with ‘phileo’ (to love), and deduce that the text is saying something about a special kind of loving, for no other reason than that ‘agapao’ is used?” (28)

I find Carson’s opening statement regarding the root fallacy a bit disturbing. I mean, every word doesn’t have a meaning bound within itself? Are you kidding me? If words don’t have an inherent meaning, if a compound word isn’t made up of two or more words (that have a definite meaning), then how is language formed? How can humans communicate?

Let’s go on to see Carson’s argument regarding ‘apostello’ and ‘apostolos’:

“It is arguable that although ‘apostolos’ (apostle) is cognate with ‘apostello’ (I send), New Testament use of the noun does not center on the meaning ‘the one sent’ but on ‘messenger’. Now a messenger is usually sent; but the word ‘messenger’ also calls to mind the message the person carries, and suggests he represents the one who sent him. In other words, actual usage in the New Testament suggests that ‘apostolos’ commonly bears the meaning ‘a special representative’ or a ‘special messenger’ rather than ‘someone sent out’” (30).

I don’t see how “special messenger” and “someone sent out” are different. I mean, how many people are just naturally sent to run errands for the sake of running errands? That doesn’t make any sense. Usually when someone is “sent out,” they have a special message or specific message to deliver. If ‘apostello’ (what happens to the apostle, the verb) cannot be similar to ‘apostolos’ (the apostle, the noun), then our English words “driver” and “drive” do not belong to each other as well. If this is so, then the English language has just been destroyed in a day!!

Carson attempts to redeem himself in the same section but only sticks out even more like a sore thumb:

“I am not saying that any word can mean anything. Normally we observe that any individual word has a certain limited semantic range, and the context may therefore modify or shape the meaning of a word only within certain boundaries. The total SEMANTIC RANGE IS NOT PERMANENTLY FIXED, OF COURSE; WITH TIME AND NOVEL USAGE, IT MAY SHIFT CONSIDERABLY…even so, I am not suggesting that words are infinitely plastic. I am simply saying that the MEANING OF A WORD CANNOT BE RELIABLY DETERMINED BY ETYMOLOGY, OR THAT A ROOT, ONCE DISCOVERED, ALWAYS PROJECTS A CERTAIN SEMANTIC LOAD ONTO ANY WORD THAT INCORPORATES THAT ROOT…LINGUISTICALLY, MEANING IS NOT AN INTRINSIC POSSESSION OF A WORD; rather, ‘it is a set of relations for which a verbal symbol is a sign’” (32).

First he says, words can’t mean anything; but then he says that the semantic range changes over time. Then, he says that words are always flexible, that they do have fixed meanings. He seems to float somewhere in-between the inherent meaning of words and the plasticity of them; But the dagger thrown at the heart of language itself comes in Carson’s last words from the passage above:

“Linguistically, meaning is not an INTRINSIC POSSESSION of a word; rather, it is a set of relations for which a verbal symbol is a sign.”

What Carson is saying here, in so many words, is that words themselves do not carry an inherent meaning—a fixed definition that does not change over time. If this line of logic is taken to its full extent, the word “is” will no longer identify objects anymore—it could mean they are similar to it or appear to be similar to it. He said that words were not “infinitely plastic,” but neither do they have “an intrinsic possession” of meaning. I would object to Carson on the basis that word cognates serve as a reference point for which we can understand other words that may seem foreign to us.

Returning to Carson's comments about "apostello" and "apostolos," word cognates are a “foundation” for language. Think of a foundation of a house, for example. Without that strong, sturdy underlining of a house, the house could not stand. Jesus used the idea of foundations in a familiar passage about hearing His words and obeying them:

24(AL) "Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like(AM) a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. 26And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like(AN) a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it." (Matthew 7:24-27, ESV)

To the Lord Jesus Christ, foundation was important because the foundation would determine the endurance of the house built (in this case, listening to Christ’s words and obeying them would determine the success of a person in life). And I believe that foundations are central to everything we do. As I am learning in epistemology, knowing, for example, that the physical world is a component of reality keeps me from becoming a complete skeptic and adopting an idea that all the world is an illusion. If the physical, tangible objects around me are not reality, what is? And if I don’t have something such as the physical by which to weigh reality, then how do I KNOW that reality even EXISTS? I don’t.

Richard Weaver writes a great chapter in his book “Ideas Have Consequences” regarding the meaning behind words—a chapter called “The Power of the Word.” Here Weaver demonstrates the necessity of the Word in everyday language:

“As myth gives way to philosophy in the normal sequences we have noted, the tendency to see A PRINCIPLE OF DIVINITY in language endures. Thus we learn that in the late ancient world the Hebrew ‘mamra’ and the Greek ‘logos’ merged, and in the Gospel of John we find an explicit identification: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.’…a following verse declares that ‘logos’ as god lies behind the design of the cosmos, for ‘without him was not anything made that was made.’ Speech begins to appear the principle of intelligibility. So when wisdom came to man in Christ, in continuation of this story, ‘the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.’ The allegory need give no difficulty; KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRIME REALITY COMES TO MAN THROUGH THE WORD; THE WORD IS A SORT OF DELIVERANCE FROM THE SHIFTING WORLD OF APPEARANCES” (149).

Go back to Genesis 1. What did God do when He decided to create the world?
“3And God said,(C) "Let there be light," and there was light.”
The first thing God did was SPEAK light into existence. Notice that one of Adam’s tasks in the Garden was to name all the animals (Genesis 2:19). God gave man such power that the very words he spoke (in this case, the naming of the animals) was done—whatever Adam called them, whether “frog” or “dog,” that was their name. When Adam SPOKE a name, the name was “set in stone.” The name Adam gave was the name the creature held, no matter what it was.

Words, from the beginning, have been vital to human understanding of life. To put it briefly, they are “an ancient landmark”; and as the above verses from Deuteronomy 19 tell us, the ancient landmarks were not to be removed. While the context of Deuteronomy 19 pertains to property, I believe these words can describe the modern-day situation with words. There is a battle today going on between those who cherish the meaning of words vs. those who choose to strip every word down to nothing. To remove etymology (the study of word history) and “the ancient landmark” of the word from human language is to do humanity a major disgrace—for removing the word could also amount to removing “The Word,” Christ Jesus.

For the reader who desires to read more, I will examine more material from Richard Weaver’s chapter called “The Power of the Word” in the coming days. Stay tuned…

The Death of Common Sense

Some time ago, I heard a sermon entitled “The Death of Common Sense” by Dr. Ergun Caner of Liberty University. Dr. Caner’s sermon was all about how what we know as “common sense,” the normal ability to reason and think, is on the verge of being eliminated from our society completely.

While common sense is not dead completely (there’s still some left—I’m trying to be hopeful here), it is dying a slow, painful death. And the church has a role to play in its death—particularly with the issue of women in ministry.
Let’s examine the following conversation from Sarah Sumner in her book, “Men and Women in the Church”:

“Some time ago a complementarian told me on the phone that the Bible is ‘absolutely clear’ on the issue of women in ministry. He said that he had ‘studied the subject carefully’ and arrived at the conclusion that ‘women are not allowed to exegete the Scriptures in Sunday School or church or in any other place where there are men.’ Resolutely he said it’s ‘unbiblical’ for a woman to pastor or preach or teach theology or serve as a deacon or an elder. But then, gratuitously, he added, ‘My desire is for women to be able to do more. In fact, my wife would make a much better elder than I do. I really don’t understand why God wants it this way.’

In my estimation, this gentleman is a Scotist. As a Scotist, he can see his wife’s ability to lead, but he doesn’t consider her giftedness to be a valid clue of God’s will. As a fellow conservative, I can appreciate his caution. He doesn’t want to exchange the biblical revelation for some preference of his own human will. That’s understandable and wise; I wouldn’t want to do that either.

Logically, however, something seems a little off to him. But because he is a Scotist, he accepts the strange dissonance between his theology of women and common sense. Morally he sees no reason for the traditional prohibition upon his godly wife. But neither does he expect God’s will to correlate necessarily with God’s design. Justifiably, then, he can say to himself that the only reason why it’s wrong for his wife to be an elder at church is because ‘GOD SAID SO’ in the Scriptures” (284-285).

The above excerpt from Sumner’s book shows us the Scotist stance in action: no matter how gifted a woman may be, no matter how evident that observation to any man, he won’t allow himself to acknowledge that she belongs in a place of leadership.

But this doesn’t make any logical sense. Think about it: what do we say if a person is good at drawing or painting? We respond with the words, “You’re good at what you do; you should become an artist.” What do we say to someone who is good at working on cars and other vehicles? “You should become a mechanic.” What do we say to someone who is good with numbers? “You should become an accountant or a math teacher,” etc. What do we say to someone who is a good orator? “You should become a professor, teacher, lawyer, or lecturer.” What do we say to someone who is good at diagnosing cases? “You should become a doctor.”

We seem to have no problem, from an observatory standpoint, to acknowledge someone’s giftedness and place them in a category that allows them to live out that giftedness. But when it comes to the issue of women in ministry, it suddenly becomes another issue entirely! Now, despite the woman’s giftedness, she can’t live out the task she is made for—because “God said so,” or so the complementarians say.

We can sit around and laugh and joke about how illogical complementarian thought really is; but the complementarian view has serious implications for the Body of Christ. I mean, if giftedness now can no longer be evidenced in the lives of believers, what about the fruit of the Spirit? If tangible evidence no longer shows us the gifts a person possesses, then that means anyone can just grab any office or task in the church. The gifts suddenly become a “free-for-all” instead of a distribution. Now, all a person has to do is just go to Bible college and seminary, get a few degrees, and before you know it, that person is ready to tackle any leadership position in the church. If we take the complementarian view to its logical standpoint, then God no longer CALLS a person to a task; people no longer DESIRE tasks in the Body of Christ (desire coming from the Lord). Now, they can just grab a task. But the problem with grabbing a task or office in the church is that, if you just grab the task because, say for instance that no one else can do it, it can come and go—I can grab this office today, and that office tomorrow, and the day after I might rid myself of both offices!

Jesus did not concern Himself with the Pharisees who only wanted to be “in the know.” He knew that they didn’t care about salvation and living a life pleasing to the Lord. Instead, He occupied His time with the masses, the societal outcasts—those who really desired to know Him. And in the church today, God is not concerned about office grabbers. God doesn’t just want people to tackle a task or job in the church because no one else can do it, or they feel they have to. God wants people to receive tasks in the church because they DESIRE to do it, because they’d rather do God’s work than anything else. As Peter writes to the elders of the churches of the Diaspora Jews:

“1So I exhort the elders among you,(A) as a fellow elder and(B) a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2(C) shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight,[a](D) not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you;[b](E) not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3not(F) domineering over those in your charge, but(G) being examples to the flock. 4And when(H) the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the(I) unfading(J) crown of glory.” (1 Pet. 5:1-4, ESV)

Notice that 1 Peter 5:2 says that the elders should serve “not under compulsion, but willingly, AS GOD WOULD HAVE YOU.” A person shouldn’t serve in the church because they feel FORCED or OBLIGATED to, but because they DESIRE to serve God in that capacity. Next, Peter says, “not for shameful gain, but eagerly.” Another easy motivation in the church could be money. Peter says, “if you’re gonna serve just because you get paid, it’s a waste of time. Serve because you love what you do FOR God, not because of what you might receive FROM God.”

I think that complementarians need to get back to the basics: we all can acknowledge the ability of the woman as a schoolteacher, a babysitter, a nurse, a professor, and so forth; now, it’s time for us to acknowledge the giftedness of a woman teacher, preacher, and pastor. To say it best, some women are made for more than the nursery, the music department, and the youth church. Come on: I know it’s gonna take some work, but you can acknowledge it...

The Philosophical Complementarian Problem

I spent time yesterday on the Lord’s Day returning to the work I’ve spent an entire month away from—and a work that beckoned me after being away for so long. Picking up Sarah Sumner’s work entitled “Men and Women in the Church,” I suddenly remembered that the issue of women in ministry remains the passion that stirs my soul. It sure feels good to return to the work I love so much!

In this post I am gonna address a new perspective on the issue itself. While I have spent quite a lot of time defending the Scriptures in their acceptance of women and their giftedness, I have not addressed other issues in this debate. Starting with Sarah Sumner’s book, I will address what I call “The Philosophical Complementarian Problem.”
Sumner, in writing on the underlying philosophical differences between egalitarians and complementarians, writes,

“I don’t claim to see every aspect of this debate in perfect detail. But I can name one reason for the gridlock that results when complementarians and egalitarians try to talk about church order. Their philosophy of order is not the same. Generally speaking, complementarians are Scotists and egalitarians are Thomists. Understanding the difference between these two philosophies of order is vital to interpreting the debate” (“Men and Women in the Church,” 274-275).

What are the views of the Thomists and the Scotists? And how do they differ from one another? Let’s read more Sumner:

“While Thomists insist that God’s commands and God’s creation correlate directly with one another, Scotists believe that God’s commands need to correlate with nothing but God’s will…egalitarians, being Thomists, assume it is obvious that God’s plan for women accords with nature and reason. Complementarians, being Scotists, don’t see that as necessary. By contrast, they assume that it is obvious that God’s plan for women doesn’t have to be connected to anything else in God’s design” (275).

In short, Thomists assume that God’s will is revealed in nature and reason; Scotists, on the other hand, believe that God’s will need not be revealed to us—that, by necessity, it only has to reside in the mind of God.

I’m one to agree that God was not obligated to reveal Himself; I mean, after all, He is God, and is free to do whatever He chooses. If He didn’t will to reveal Himself, He didn’t will it. Revelation of Himself was entirely His call.
But He DID reveal Himself to us. And Scripture is full of evidence against the complementarian’s philosophical perspective.

Consider Psalm 98:2 (ESV):

“The LORD has MADE KNOWN his salvation; he has REVEALED his righteousness in the sight of the nations.”

When the Lord came to the aid of His people, as He did all throughout the Old Testament, God did not just secretly transport His people out of the troubling situations; He PHYSICALLY delivered them! Think back to the Red Sea. What did God do? He parted the Red Sea, let the Israelites walk on dry land, and then He DROWNED the Egyptians, Pharaoh and his army!

What about all their enemies in the land—the Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, etc? God rescued His people out of their hands—but the Israelites had to take up arms and go to war (and God PHYSICALLY rescued them!).

Look at Isaiah 40, a chapter about the coming comfort for God’s people. In verse 3 we read:

“A voice cries: ‘in the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God…’

Who was the voice of the one in the wilderness? John the Baptist (Mark 1:3). And who was He shouting about? The LORD.

Look at Isaiah 40:5—
“And the glory of the LORD SHALL BE REVEALED, and all flesh SHALL SEE IT together…”

Not only would God’s glory be revealed in Christ (as the Gospels signify), but also everyone would see it! Christ’s coming in the flesh as Son of Man would be something tangible, something that humanity would witness with its own eyes!

John the Beloved writes this of Christ in his Epistle of First John:

“That which was from the beginning, which we have HEARD, which WE HAVE SEEN WITH OUR EYES, which WE LOOKED UPON and HAVE TOUCHED WITH OUR HANDS, concerning the Word of Life—the life was MADE MANIFEST, and WE HAVE SEEN IT, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was MADE MANIFEST to us—that which we have SEEN and HEARD we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1 Jn. 1:1-3, ESV).

So God’s will was PHYSICALLY evident on earth in Christ. Doesn’t sound to me like the Scotist view.

Not only was Christ revealed tangibly as a sign of God’s will, but even creation was revealed physically to show God’s existence:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For WHAT CAN BE KNOWN ABOUT GOD IS PLAIN TO THEM, BECAUSE GOD HAS SHOWN IT TO THEM. For his INVISIBLE attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, HAVE BEEN CLEARLY PERCEIVED, ever since the creation of the world, IN THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20, ESV).

Note that here in Romans 1 we have creation reflecting the glory of God (as does also Psalm 19). What I love about the passage above is that “God’s invisible attributes” (the things about God that humanity couldn’t see) God chose to PHYSICALLY reveal so that humanity could see and observe them. What attributes did He make known to mankind? “His eternal power and divine nature.” Without God showing us these things, we would still be “in the dark” about who God is. And without seeing God, every person in humanity could cry ignorance.

But God has made Himself visibly known to humanity—through His creation. This is what we call General Revelation. All the world can see this demonstration of the nature of God. God also reveals Himself through His Word—and we call this “Specific Revelation.” This knowledge can only come from God’s Word.

There are a host of other passages of Scripture that demonstrate to us God’s desire to make Himself known; and I will continue to bring those passages up in the following days. The point of this post, however, is to demonstrate that the God of the Bible is a God of revelation, not a God of disguise. If the Scotists are looking for a God who masks Himself, they’re looking in the wrong place (the Bible) to find Him.